ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 2 · 2015 pp.

243–258 243

A GIS based integration method for geothermal

resources exploration and site selection

Younes Noorollahi*1, Roghayeh Ghasempour1 and Saeid Jalilinasrabady2

1
Department of Renewable Energies and Environmental Eng., Faculty of New Sciences &
Technologies, University of Tehran, Iran, E-mail: Noorollahi@ut.ac.ir
2
Faculty of International Resource Sciences, Akita University, Akita, Japan

(Received 2 November 2014; accepted 26 February 2015)

Abstract
A toolbox using a Geographic Information System (GIS) was developed and
introduced as a decision-making tool to locate potential geothermal areas. The
study aims to introduce step-by-step guidelines and develop a user friendly
computer program that can determine promising geothermal areas. Six data layers
characterizing the geothermal area are employed in the site selection process.
ArcMap was used as a base program to develop the GIS Model for
Geothermal Resource Exploration (GM-GRE), which consists of geoprocessing
tools and a model builder. Criteria for defining promising areas based on each
layer are defined using spatial relationship analysis of currently producing
geothermal wells in Akita and Iwate prefectures in northern Japan as proven
geothermal resources and evidence layers. Areas with geothermal potential were
defined and prioritized using input data layers.

Keywords: Geothermal, Exploration, GIS modeling, Geochemistry,

Geophysics, Geology

1. INTRODUCTION
Identification of a geothermal prospect area is one of the goals of a geothermal
exploration program. In the early stage of geothermal development, the recognition of
promising areas for further exploration is one of the most important tasks. There is no
particular step-by-step guideline to direct scientists and engineers on how to collect
and manage data and information for identifying promising areas. This paper
introduces GIS tools for collecting and interpreting the required data.
Active geothermal areas have various natural manifestations at the ground surface.
Hot springs, fumaroles, mud pots, and hydrothermal alteration, particularly in areas of
high thermal activity, are natural indicators of geothermal activity, providing a visible
indication of the transport of heat and mass through the Earth’s crust. Geothermal
exploration programs and also the Geographic Information System (GIS) Model for
Geothermal Resource Exploration (GM-GRE) toolbox can make use of such
manifestations and measurements with other investigation techniques to identify the
location of prospective geothermal resources.
244 A GIS based integration method for geothermal
resources exploration and site selection

A geothermal exploration program is usually developed on a step-by-step basis,

comprising reconnaissance, feasibility, and assessment. During each stage of the process,
the less prospective areas are gradually eliminated from consideration and remaining
efforts are concentrated on the most promising areas (Dickson and Fanelli, 2004).
Geothermal exploration management combines the results of a number of
exploration methods such as geological, geochemical, and geophysical surveys to
locate prospective areas for further development. The basic function of exploration
management is to identify the location and extent of areas that warrant further detailed
investigation. Identifying areas of high geothermal potential can be a daunting task for
exploration project managers; however, the decision-making process can be made less
cumbersome if it is broken down into general steps (Noorollahi et al., 2007):
• Collection of required existing data and information
• Assessment and characterization of the study area
• Development of site selection criteria and defining of promising areas based on
all data sets
• Development of layer integration model
• Defining of most promising potential areas
• Prioritization of selected potential sites
The decision-making process for locating prospective areas involves combining the
results of a number of different surveys and studies; human error is unavoidable during
this complex procedure. To provide high reliability for the selected area and to
minimize human error, we used a GIS to develop an easy to use toolbox to identify
prospective areas by precisely combining various digital data layers.
GIS is an important tool for the integral interpretation of geoscientific data using a
computerized approach, especially in exploration work. This approach has been used to
determine spatial associations among diverse evidence layers in the area of interest
(Noorollahi et al., 2005; 2008; Coolbaugh et al., 2002; 2005a;2005b; Prol-Ledesma, 2000).
GIS models have also been successfully used in regional exploration for mineral
resources (Agterberg, 1989; Bonham-Carter, 1991; Katz, 1991; Bonham-Carter, 1994).
The evidence layers can be selected by technical experts such as engineers and scientists
to make decisions on further works (Campbell et al., 1982; McCammon, 1993).
Geothermal exploration could potentially use such a GIS-based technique at several
of the exploration stages (Noorollahi et al., 2007; Noorollahi, 2005). Geothermal
exploration requires the analysis of data by combining various sets of geoscientific
information, including surface geology, the location of geothermal manifestations,
geomagnetic and gravity measurements, thermal data (temperature gradient and heat
flow), the geochemistry of surface manifestations, and remote sensing data. The data
are analyzed by experts who then determine the location and extent of the most
promising geothermal prospect area.
GIS-based decision-making systems have been applied in suitability analyses for
geothermal resource exploration in northern Japan (Noorollahi et al., 2007) Iran
(Yousefi et al., 2007)., Iceland (Dichson and Fanelli, 2004) and the USA (Coolbaugh
et al., 2002; Coolbaugh et al., 2005a; 2005b). The results of these studies show that
the location and extent of geothermal promising areas defined by the GIS method
correlates closely with those defined by conventional methods.
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 2 · 2015 245

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the GM-GRE which presents the employed layers,
tools, operators and derived final suitability layers.

The GM-GRE tool is developed to facilitate the recognition of a geothermal

promising area in the early stage of a geothermal exploration program (Fig. 1). The
criteria, which are the spatial relationship between producing geothermal wells
(proven geothermal resources) and evidence layers in this study, are defined using
information from geothermal fields from Akita and Iwate prefectures in northern
Japan. The spatial relationship analysis for defining the criteria is described in Section 3.
These criteria are applied to the GM-GRE tools as defaults but they can be changed
by the user according to the condition of a given study area.

2. EVIDENCE LAYER (THEMATIC MAPS)

2.1. Geological layers
Geological studies play an important role in all stages of geothermal exploration. The
geological formations that host a hydrothermal system require suitable rock
formations that allow water to circulate to deep levels, a source of heat, an adequate
availability of water, sufficient time and surface area of heat exchange to enable the
water to be heated and a return path toward the surface.
The aim of geological studies in the early stage of geothermal exploration is to
evaluate the possibility of the presence of a heat source, geological formations to host
geothermal fluid, a downward pathway for infiltration of meteoric water to recharge
the system and an upward pathway for geothermal fluid.
Geothermal systems occur in a variety of geological situations. They are more often
related to areas of andesitic, dacitic, and rhyolitic rocks than to basaltic eruption
246 A GIS based integration method for geothermal
resources exploration and site selection

centers (McNitt, 1964; Case and Wilde, 1976). Many geothermal fields have
structures produced by tectonic activity, such as block faulting, graben formation, or
rift valleys. Locations are particularly favorable at the intersection of faults bordering
major structural blocks. For example, the majority of geothermal fields in New
Zealand are situated in major graben structures, as are the fields in the Salton Sea,
California, and Cerro Prieto, Mexico. Several fields are associated with volcanic
caldera structures (e.g., Matsukawa, Pauzhetsk, Valles Caldera, and Ahuachapan)
whereas others are related to specific volcanoes (e.g., Momotombo, Nicaragua and
Kawah Kamojang, Indonesia).
Waters are derived from local meteoric waters, which may descend to considerable
depths through fault-fissure systems, then heated, and flow upward by convective
forces. Major upflow routes are commonly located through faults and fissure zones
with high permeability. The heating of water at depth is usually attributed to
conductive heat originating from the magma body. Geological evidence layers in a
geothermal potential site selection process include required conditions that are
necessary for the development of a geothermal system.
The presence and distribution of volcanic rocks, active volcanoes, craters and
calderas, and faults are the main data used as geological evidences for geothermal
resource prospecting.

2.1.1. Volcanic rocks

Most geothermal potentials occur along Quaternary volcanic zones; consequently,
their heat sources can be considered to be linked to volcanoes. The presence of
Quaternary volcanic rocks is one of the evidence layers used for identifying
geothermal prospects because they produce heat sources in the form of intrusive dikes.
Large, igneous-related geothermal systems that have high temperatures are
associated with Quaternary volcanic fields, and geothermal potential declines rapidly as
age increases. Most high-grade recoverable geothermal energy is likely to be associated
with silicic volcanic systems that have been active in the past 1 million years (Sherrod
and Smith, 2000). Lower grade (lower temperature) geothermal resources may be
associated with somewhat older rocks; however, volcanic rocks emplaced more than 2
million years ago are unlikely geothermal targets (Smith and Shaw, 1975).
A young (Quaternary, almost 1-2 Ma) volcanic rock map of the study area is
required to make an ArcMap polygon layer that denotes the surface signature of the
geothermal potential at depth and is used as an input data layer.

2.1.2. Volcanic craters, and calderas

Volcanoes are an obvious indicator of underground heat sources. Volcanic craters can
constitute one of the elements in geological exploration for geothermal resources, as
the presence of craters leads geologists to assume the area hosts or hosted a great deal
of volcanic activity. The location of craters is one line of evidence for deciding where
to concentrate additional exploration work in the area to locate a potential prospect.
The locations of craters and calderas in a given study area can be extracted from
geological or any other available maps and standardize to the ArcMap environment as
a polyline data type.
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 2 · 2015 247

2.1.3. Faults and fractures

A key to targeting a region of geothermal potential is to understand the role of faults
and fractures in controlling subsurface fluid flow. Fractures and faults can play an
important role in geothermal fields, as fluid mostly flows through fractures in the
source rocks. The importance of faults and fractures in geothermal development is
well recognized; Hanano (2000) pointed out that faults influence the character of
natural convection in geothermal systems. Blewitt et al. (Blewitt et al., 2003) indicated
that at a regional scale, the locations of existing geothermal power plants in Great
Basin, USA, and the spatial pattern of geothermal wells are strongly correlated with
measured rates of tectonic transtensional strain. This indicates that geothermal systems
in some regions might be controlled by fault planes that act as conduits for fluid flow
and are continuously being extended by tectonic activity.
The study of geothermal fields in the Black Rock Desert, Pyramid Lake, and
Carson Sink regions shows that many systems occupy discrete steps in fault zones or
lie in belts of intersecting, overlapping, and/or terminating faults. In addition, most
fields are associated with steeply dipping faults and, in many cases, with Quaternary
faults (Faulds et al., 2006).
Faults and fractures contribute to the occurrence of natural convection in the
observed geothermal systems. Accordingly, Faults can be used as an evidence layer in
the selection of potential geothermal sites. Faults within the study area can be
determined from a geological or structural map and defined as a polyline feature class
in the GIS environment.

2.2. Geochemical data layers

Geochemical studies such as those on the occurrence and spatial distribution of hot
springs, fumaroles and acidic alteration zones play important roles in the investigation
of geothermal resource prospect areas. Geochemical methods are widely used in both
preliminary prospecting and at every stage of geothermal exploration and
development. Geochemical evidence layers used for geothermal resource prospecting
include the distributions of hydrothermal alteration zones, hot springs with
temperatures in excess of 25 ℃, and fumaroles, which are described in this paper.

2.2.1. Hydrothermal alteration zones

Hydrothermal alteration involves mineralogical changes resulting from the interaction
between hydrothermal fluids and rocks. The formation of secondary minerals in
geothermal systems is controlled by the chemical/physical conditions of the system.
For example, the presence, abundance, and stability of hydrothermal alteration
minerals depend on the temperature, pressure, lithology, permeability, and fluid
composition of the system (Browne, 1978; Harvey and Browne, 1991). Thus, analysis
of the hydrothermal alteration provides information on the occurrence of geothermal
resources, the location of geothermally prospective areas, and the chemical
characteristics of deep water within the system. For site selection, the location and
surface distribution of acidic hydrothermal alteration zones are applicable. Knowledge
of the distribution of surface alteration zones can lead to the identification of
prospective geothermal areas.
248 A GIS based integration method for geothermal
resources exploration and site selection

The locations of the acidic hydrothermal alteration zones in study areas can be
extracted from geological or any other available maps and standardize to the ArcMap
environment as a polygon data type.

2.2.2. Fumaroles
Fumaroles emit mixtures of steam and other gases to the atmosphere, and are one
of the mostly commonly occurring geothermal features within active volcanic
areas. The existence of fumaroles in an area lets geothermal researchers assume the
probability of there being geothermal resources at depth is much higher than in
other areas.
A location map of fumaroles can be extracted from different source maps such as
geological and hydrological maps and digitized as a point feature class data layer in
the ArcMap environment.

2.2.3. Hot Springs

Hot springs have always provided irrefutable proof of a subsurface heat source. It is
assumed that the probability of the occurrence of a geothermal resource is higher in an
area with geothermal surface signatures such as hot springs and steaming ground than
that in the surrounding area. Based on this assumption, the area of high probability of
a geothermal resource can be selected.
A hot spring data layer is prepared by making a point data layer in the ArcMap
environment. Hot springs with temperatures higher than 25 ℃ are used in this
data layer.

2.3. Geophysical data layers

Geophysical exploration methods have been applied successfully to locate the heat
sources of a geothermal system and characterize the probability of the potential
reservoir. Gravimetric, aeromagnetic, seismic and thermal methods (thermal gradient
and heat flow) can be used in geothermal resource prospecting in large scale
investigations. However, the temperature gradient is the most common data and can
be accessed from oil drilling, mining and ground water wells.

2.3.1. Temperature gradient

Subsurface temperature data are used to determine the temperature gradient and
thermal anomalies in many areas around the world for geothermal resource
prospecting (Flovenz et al., 1982; Coolbaugh et al., 2007; Yin et al., 2005; Chopra and
Holgate, 2005; Rasteniene and Puronas, 2005). Temperature gradient data can be
collected from different sources such as petroleum, ground water, mining and
geothermal wells. The gradient can be obtained from measurements of subsurface
temperature in wells at specified depths. The geothermal gradient represents the rate
of change in temperature (ΔT) with depth (ΔX) in the subsurface. High geothermal
gradients are commonly found in areas around hot springs and volcanoes.
The distribution model of the geothermal gradient in the study area can be
developed using the Natural Neighbor method housed in ArcMap-3DAnalyst.
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 2 · 2015 249

The study area is classified into two different classes, and the area with lower
geothermal gradient is discarded from further analysis. An area with a temperature
gradient higher than the average temperature gradient (30 ℃/km), for example
50 ℃/km, can be selected as a promising area. The map of this selected area is
converted to a feature class vector data layer in polygon format.

3. SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP ANALYSIS OF GEOTHERMAL

SIGNATURES AND EVIDENCES
To determine the spatial distribution relationship of known geothermal resources
and GM-GRE evidence layers, a distance relationship analysis was conducted in
the Tohoku district of Japan. The GM-GER evidence layers comprised data layers
provided by different exploration surveys, and were used in a GIS model of
geothermal resource exploration. Distance relationship analysis was conducted
using ArcMap to determine the dominant distance association of the production
wells as approved geothermal resources to data in the GM-GRE evidence layers. In
the Tohoku area, there are 430 productive geothermal wells in many geothermal
fields such as Matsukawa, Sumikawa, Ohnuma, Kakkonda, and Uenotai Geological
Survey of Japan, 2002. These wells were used for the distance relationship analysis.
Distances were calculated between the locations of geothermal wells and volcanic
rocks, volcanic calderas and craters, active faults, hot springs, fumaroles and
hydrothermal alteration zones.
For polygon layers such as those that contain data on Quaternary volcanic rocks
and hydrothermal alteration zones, distance was calculated from the geothermal
well to the edge of the nearest polygon unit. The distance was defined as a “zero”
meter for wells drilled within polygons. For layers that contain point data (hot
springs and fumaroles), distance was defined from the wellhead to the hot spring
or fumarole. For layers that contain line data such as volcanic calderas and craters
and active faults, distance was calculated from the wellhead to the nearest portion
of the line.
The calculated dominant distance data for each layer was then plotted as a
histogram with a 1000 m bin size; each bin contains information on the start and end
values of the bin range. We performed a relative frequency analysis of calculated
distance by specifying a dominant distance for the distribution of wells within each
evidence layer. Relative frequency analysis of measured distance was plotted on the
vertical axis, and 5% relative frequency was selected for identifying a dominant
relative distance for all data layers. In other words, the area within each evidence
layer was classified into 1000 m distance classes; if the numbers of wells located
within a class is equal or more than 5% of all wells, the associated distance is
marked up as a selection distance. In GM-GRE tools, this defined distance was used
to define promising areas based on the data in each layer. The results of the
calculation and defined distances for each of the evidence layers are summarized in
Table 1. As an example of the analysis, Figure 2 shows a histogram and distribution
analysis of the relative distances from geothermal wells to the locations of
hydrothermal alteration zones.
250 A GIS based integration method for geothermal
resources exploration and site selection

Table 1. Result of calculations and defined distances for evidence layers.

Number of class Wells inside Defined distance

including selected for further
Evidence layer > 5% of wells area (%) analysis (m)
Quaternary volcanic rocks 2 84 2000
Volcanic craters 6 94 6000
Active faults 6 76 6000
Hot springs 4 97 4000
Fumaroles 4 88 4000
Hydrothermal alteration 3 91 3000

Figure 2. Histogram and distribution analysis of the relative distances from

geothermal wells to the locations of hydrothermal alteration zones.

4. GM-GRE TOOLS AND SUITABILITY SITE SELECTION

4.1. Geological suitability method and tool
Geological suitability can be determined by integrating the defined areas based on
volcanic rocks, volcanic craters, and active faults. These three layers can be overlain
and the selected areas are combined (union) to identify geologically suitable areas.
The Union Tool in ArcMap creates a new coverage by overlaying two or more
polygon coverages. The output coverage contains the combined polygons and the
attributes of both coverages. In using this method, those areas selected as suitable
areas by any one of the evidence layers are combined to prevent the loss of any
prospective areas defined by a single evidence layer.
A GM-GRE geological tool is developed in the ArcMap environment using
Geoprossesing tools as an ArcToolbox. The input layers are Quaternary volcanic
rocks, faults and fractures, and volcanic craters and calderas. A selection query of the
tool is the buffer size for generating factor maps of each data layer, and default
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 2 · 2015 251

distances are given in Table 1. Although the distances can be changed by the user
according to the conditions of the study area.
When the factor maps are generated from input data layers they are combined to
identify geological suitability using
GeoLo_S = (FA∪VC∪VR) (1)
where GeoLo_S is geological suitability, FA, VC and VR denote the fault, volcanic
crater and Quaternary volcanic rock factor maps and U is the “OR” (UONION)
Boolean operator.
The output layers are stored in a specific folder on a personal computer as an
intermediate data type and combined using the Union tool of ArcToolbox. The
generated combined output layers include several polygons that are merged using the
Dissolved tool. The defined area is a prospecting area based on only geological data.
Figure 3 shows the input window of the Geological tool.

4.2. Geochemical suitability method and tool

Geoprossesing tools are used to develop the GM-GRE Geochemical Toolbox in the
ArcMap environment for selection of geothermally suitable localities based on
geochemical data. Geochemical suitability can be identified by integrating factor maps
based on hot springs, fumaroles, and alteration zones. These three layers can be
overlain and the selected areas need to be combined (union) to identify the
geochemically suitable area:
GeoCh_S = (HS∪FU∪AZ) (2)
Where GeoCh_S is geochemical suitability, HS, FU and AZ are the hot spring,
fumarole and acidic alteration zone factor maps respectively.
The distances in Table 1 are used for the selection query of buffer sizes in defining
the promising locations; however, the distances can be changed by the user according
to the conditions of the study area.

Figure 3. Input window of the GM-GRE Geological Toolbox.

252 A GIS based integration method for geothermal
resources exploration and site selection

The output of this tool denotes a promising area based on only geochemical data
layers. Figure 4 shows the input window of the Geochemical Toolbox. A brief
description of each input data layer is described in the “Help Menu” of the input
window of the program.

4.3. Geophysical tool

In the Geophysical tool, the temperature gradient distribution map is used as an input
file and the area with a temperature gradient greater than 50 ℃/km is generated as an
output file. Figure 5 shows the input window of the Geophysical tool.

4.4. Geothermal potential site selection and GPA tool

Favorable and unfavorable terrains in a study area in terms of geothermal potential can
be defined using three suitability digital layers, namely the geological, geochemical,
and temperature gradient suitability layers, and Boolean integration methods.

Figure 4. Input window of the GM-GRE Geochemical Toolbox.

Figure 5. Input window of the GM-GRE Geophysical Toolbox.

ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 2 · 2015 253

Boolean integration methods are applicable for logical combination of binary maps.
Two conditional operators, “OR” (Union) and “AND” (Intersect), are applied for data
integration.
The Intersect (AND) Tool in ArcMap calculates the geometric intersection of any
number of feature classes and data layers that are indicative of geothermal activity
(e.g., high temperature gradients and mapped surface alterations). Features that are
common to all input data layers are selected using this method (Bonham-Carter,
1994). This implies the selected area is suitable for a study based on all input data
layers, and the selected area receives the highest suitability rank. Those areas that
are common to some but not all data layers are selected and ranked in the next
priority levels.
For performing a Boolean logic model, the study area based on each evidence layer
needs to be classified and assigned different values. Two different values are assigned to
the area: 1 for the area with geothermal resources and 0 for the area without geothermal
resources. The defined areas in the three suitability data layers were assigned the value
1 and other parts of the study area in each data layer received the value 0.
The final sites were selected by running the GM-GRE Geothermal Potential Area
(GPA) toolbox that combines the three input data layers. The Boolean AND (Intersect)
operator was used for overlying these three layers and the areas that are common for
all three layers are selected as the best suitable area. Integrating data layers for the
selection of the promising geothermal area is done by

GPA = (GeoLo_S ∪ GeoCh_s ∪TG) (3)

Where GPA, GeoLo, GeoCh and TG are the geothermal potential area, geological
suitability, geochemical suitability and temperature gradient suitability maps,
respectively, and ∪ is the “AND” (Intersect) Boolean operator.
The input window of the program is presented in Figure 6. The user is asked to
input the three mentioned data layers, and then the program calculates and selects the
potential locations.

Figure 6. Input window of the geothermal potential area tool.

254 A GIS based integration method for geothermal
resources exploration and site selection

Table 2. Employed layers and ranking of the geothermal prospect areas.

Rank Geological suitability Geochemical suitability Geophysical suitability

1st priority Yes Yes Yes
2nd priority No Yes Yes
3rd priority Yes No Yes
4th priority Yes Yes No

By integrating a different number of data layers, prospective areas are defined and
ranked. Priorities of selected areas depend on the number of data layers employed in
selecting an area. The area common to all three data layers is given first priority. The
second priority area is the area common for geophysical and geochemical layers and the
third priority area is the area common for geophysical and geological layers. Integration
of geological and geochemical layers gives the fourth priority area. Table 2 summarizes
how the layers are employed and the corresponding rankings.

5. CONCLUSIONS
A GM-GRE Toolbox was developed in a GIS environment for regional scale
geothermal potential site selection. The tool was developed to be user friendly and
step-by-step guidelines help scientists and engineers define the geothermal prospect
locations. Digital data layers and maps can be used in a GIS environment to develop
a geothermal favorability map.
Three different data sources, namely geological and geochemistry sources and the
geothermal gradient, are applicable to the tool to assess the geothermal potential on a
regional scale. The tool’s default selection criteria are those proposed by Noorollahi et al.
(2007) but the criteria can be changed by the user.
The GM-GRE model was validated using data and information from Akita and
lwate prefectures, northern Japan using data and information from Noorollahi et al.
(2007).The results demonstrate the vast majority of production wells currently
operating for power generation are located within the first priority area and the
results of previous work and new developed full automated model the fully
correlated.

REFERENCES
Agterberg F.P., 1989. Computer programs for mineral exploration. Science 245(4913),
76–81.
Bjornsson T., 2000. Geothermal exploration in Arskogsstrond, N-ICELAND.
Proceedings of World Geothermal Congress 2000, Kyushu - Tohoku, Japan,
May 28 – June 10, 2000, pp. 1133–1138.
Blewitt G., Coolbaugh M.F., Sawatzky D.L., Holt W., Kreemer C., Davis J.L. and
Bennett R.A., 2003. Targeting of potential geothermal resources in the Great
Basin from regional to basin scale relationships between geodetic strain and
geological structures. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 27, 3–8.
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 2 · 2015 255

Bonham-Carter G.F., 1994, Geographical information systems for geoscientists:

modeling with GIS, Computer Methods in the Geosciences 13, Pergamon,
New York, pp. 398.
Bonham-Carter G.F., 1991. Integration of geoscientific data using GIS, In:
Geographical Information Systems: Principles and Applications. Maguire D.J.,
Goodchild M.F. and Rhind D.W. (Eds.), Longman, Essex, pp. 171–184.
Browne P.R.L., 1978. Hydrothermal alteration in active geothermal fields. Annual
Review of Earth and Planetary Science 6, 229–248.
Case C.W. and Wilde P., 1976. Method for geothermal reservoir detection
emphasizing submerged environments. Energy and Environment Division,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, pp. 64.
Coolbaugh M.F., Sladek C., Faulds J.E., Zehner R.E. and Oppliger G.L., 2007. Use of
Rapid Temperature measurements at a 2-meter depth to augment deeper
temperature gradient drilling. Proceedings, Thirty-Second Workshop on
Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
January 22–24, 2007, pp. 1–8.
Coolbaugh M., Zehner R., Kreemer C., Blackwell D., Oppliger G., Sawatzky D., Blewitt G.,
Pancha A., Richards M., Helm-Clark C., Shevenell L., Raines G., Johnson G.,
Minor T. and Boyd T., 2005a. Geothermal potential map of the Great Basin,
western United States. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Map 151.
Coolbaugh M.F., Zehner R.E., Raines G.L., Oppliger G.L. and Kreemer C., 2005b.
Regional prediction of geothermal systems in the Great Basin, USA using
Weights of evidence and logistic regression in a Geographic Information
System (GIS), in Cheng, Q. and Bonham-Carter, G., eds., GIS and Spatial
Analysis. International Association of Mathematical Geology Annual
Conference Proceedings, Toronto, Canada, August 21–26, 2005, pp. 505–510.
Coolbaugh M.F., Taranik J.V., Raines G.L., Shevenell L.A., Sawatzky D.L., Minor T.B.
and Bedell R., 2002, A geothermal GIS for Nevada: defining regional controls
and favorable exploration terrains for extensional geothermal systems. in:
Proceedings, Annual Meeting, Reno, NV., September 22–25, 2002,
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions v. 26, pp. 485–490.
Chopra P.N. and Holgate F., 2005. A GIS analysis of temperature in the Australian
crust. Proceedings of World Geothermal Congress 2005, Antalya, April 24–29,
2005, Turkey, pp. 1–7.
Dickson M.H. and Fanelli M., 2004. What is geothermal energy? Istituto di
Geoscienze e Georisorse, CNR, Pisa, Italy, pp. 61.
Faulds J.E., Coolbaugh M.F. and Vice G.S., 2006. Geologic and geophysical analyses
of geothermal fields in the Northwestern Great Basin, western USA:
Characterizing structural and tectonic controls, Enhanced Geothermal
Innovative Network for Europe, Workshop 1, defining, exploring, imaging and
assessing reservoirs for potential heat exchange, November 6–8, 2006,
Geoforschungszentrum-Potsdam-Germany, pp. 69–76.
256 A GIS based integration method for geothermal
resources exploration and site selection

Flovenz G.O., Karlsdottir R., Saemundsson K., Smarason O.B., Eysteinsson H.,
Bjornsson G., Olafsson M., Campbell A.N., Hollister V.G. and Duda R.O.,
1982. Recognition of a hidden mineral deposit by an artificial intelligence
program. Science 217(4563), 927–929.
Geological Survey of Japan, 2002. Geothermal resources map of Tohoku and Kyushu,
Digital geosciences map GT-1, Geological Survey of Japan.
Hanano M., 2000. Two different roles of fractures in geothermal development, In:
Proceedings of World Geothermal Congress 2000, Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan,
May 28–June 10, 2000, pp. 2597–2602.
Harvey C.C. and Browne P.R.L., 1991. Mixed layer clay geothermometer in the
Wairakei geothermal field, New Zealand. Clays and Clay Minerals 39(6),
614–621.
Hirsh H., Coen M.H., Mozer M.C., Hasha R.O. and Flanagan J.L, 1999. “Room
service, AI-style.” IEEE intelligent systems 14(2), 8–19.
Katz S.S., 1991. Emulating the prospector expert system with a raster GIS. Computers
& Geosciences 17(7), 1033–1050.
Yin L.H., Hou G.C. and Wang X.Y., 2005. Geothermal gradient in the Ordos Basin,
Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2005, Antalya, Turkey, April 24–29,
2005. pp. 1–3.
McCammon R.B., 1993. Prospector II-An expert system for mineral deposits models.
In: Mineral Deposit Modeling, Kirkham R.V., Sinclair W.D., Thorpe R.I. and
Duke J.M. (Eds.), Geological Association of Canada, Special Paper 40,
pp. 679–684.
McNitt J.R., 1964. Geology of the Geysers thermal area. Proceeding of United Nations
Conferences on New Sources Energy 1961 2: pp. 292–301.
Noorollahi Y., Itoi R., Fujii H. and Toshiaki T., 2008. GIS integration model for
geothermal exploration and well siting. Geothermics 37(2), 107–131.
Noorollahi Y., ltoi R., Fujii H. and Toshiaki T., 2007. GIS model for geothermal
resource exploration in Akita and Iwate prefectures, Northern Japan. Journal of
Computer & Geosciences 33(8), 1008–1021.
Noorollahi Y., 2005. Application of GIS and remote sensing in exploration and
environmental management of Namafjall geothermal area, N-Iceland. M.Sc.
Thesis, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland, 193.
Prol-Ledesma R.M., 2000. Evaluation of the reconnaissance results in geothermal
exploration using GIS. Geothermics 29(1), 83–103.
Rasteniene V. and Puronas V., 2005. Geothermal atlas of Lithuania. Proceedings World
Geothermal Congress 2005, Antalya, Turkey, April 24–29, 2005. pp. 1–6.
Sherrod D.R. and Smith J.G., 2000. Geologic map of upper Eocene to Holocene
volcanic and related rocks of the Cascade Range. Oregon: Geologic
Investigations Series Map I-2569, 2 sheets, scale 1:500,000, U.S. Geological
Survey, pp. 1–17.
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 2 · 2015 257

Smith R.L. and Shaw H.R., 1975. Igneous-related geothermal systems. In: White D.E.
and Williams D.L. (Eds.), Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the United
States, 1975. U.S. Geological Survey Circular C 0726, pp. 58–83.
Yousefi H., Ehara S. and Noorollahi Y., 2007. Geothermal potential site selection
using GIS in Iran, Proceeding of 32nd Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, January 22–24, 2007. Stanford, CA, USA, pp. 174–182.